Check Spine setup

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The readOnlyHint annotation establishes that the operation is non-mutating, while the enumerated checks add useful detail about what is inspected. The description does not explain what happens when a check fails or whether results include remediation guidance.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences front-load the inspected components and then state the usage trigger. There is no redundant, promotional, or unnecessary wording.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter, read-only diagnostic, the stated scope and troubleshooting trigger are nearly sufficient for correct selection and invocation. With no output schema, a brief note about the diagnostic result or next steps, plus disambiguation from related status tools, would make it more complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has no parameters, so there is no argument syntax or semantics requiring clarification. The zero-parameter baseline applies, and the description appropriately presents it as a standalone check.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a concrete diagnostic scope: the Spine CLI, editor version and license, spine-core version, and work folder. It does not explicitly distinguish this setup check from related siblings such as spine_status or spine_editor_status.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"Run first when something fails" provides an explicit troubleshooting trigger and ordering guidance. It offers no when-not guidance or alternatives for routine status checks versus deeper validation or auditing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.